ArmaLite: We Won’t Stop Selling to Gun Ban State LEOs

courtesy armalite.com

An ArmaLite sales rep started a kerfuffle recently when he responded to an emailer in, shall we say, a less than courteous manner. The emailer had asked what ArmaLite’s position would be vis-à-vis selling to government entities and LEOs in states where citizens are prohibited from owning the company’s guns. See the rude retort here. Sensing trouble brewing and wanting to avoid another Cheaper Than Dirt-style shitstorm, ArmaLite president Mark Westrom issued the following press release which we got via ar15.com after ArmaLite shut down their Facebook page . . .

Thanks for posting this email. I just received a concerned telephone call about it, an email from the staffer who stimulated the mail.

I think a bit of clarification is in order.

The root of the matter is a HUGE series of inquiries by both email and telephone asking ArmaLite to cut off sales to New York and other states which deny its citizens the right to own our rifles, as several other firms have done. Some of the contacts have been duplicates of others and some were so redundant that they appeared to be spam. Many of them have been rude and I’m afraid one of my staffers thought that he was responding to a spammer and was more terse than he should have been. Once he realized what happened he came to me and apologized.

My purpose here is to pass on his apology from the corporate level and to answer the initial question: What is ArmaLite going to do?

ArmaLite is continuing a policy put into place when California first banned our rifles. That policy remains:

1. We will not sell to those states which deny it’s honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s.

2. We do not halt sales to individual officers even in problematic states. I am a former Police Officer myself, and the staffer who stimulated the recent anger is a currently serving one. We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.

We consider sales to those sate subdivisions which are not engaged or potentially engaged with disarming its citizens. DNR and Forestry Departments, for instance, sometimes serve in remote areas that conceal drug farms and their officers deserve good hardware.

3. We will not sell to those lower political subdivisions that deny their honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s. Chicago, for instance, prohibits its citizens from owning ArmaLite’s within the city limits so we make no effort to sell into that city. We have many friends on the Chicago Police Department and have continued to sell to them individually.

Our observation is that most County Sheriffs disagree with banning sales of our rifles and many publicly refuse to enforce such laws. We sell to those departments and to their Deputies, but will not sell to those County departments headed by Sheriffs who would deny their citizens the same rights.

In short, Americans need not worry that ArmaLite is selling to those who betray them.

As you can see by reading posts on the topic, some readers have been harsh with their criticism of ArmaLite. It was in response to this atmosphere that my staffer reacted harshly. He’s come to me and apologized and I personally am passing my own apology along with his.

But don’t be mistaken, ArmaLite is strongly involved with both personal, corporate, and political efforts at the State, National, and International level to protect our civil rights. And we’ll continue to support your shooting needs as the situation moves forward.

Respectfully,
Mark Westrom
President,
ArmaLite Inc.

182 Responses to ArmaLite: We Won’t Stop Selling to Gun Ban State LEOs

  1. avatarChuck says:

    Not good enough ArmaLite.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      CALL TO ACTION: Five Minutes of your time is all I ask.
      Armalite
      Sales@armalite.com
      Please email Mark Westrom at the email above. Be civil, and kind. Let them know we don’t want Armalite to sell to individual LEO’s in states that infringe on our second amendment rights.

      • avatarDale says:

        Email SENT!

      • avatarLarry2 says:

        Done

      • My letter:

        Not good enough, Mr. Westrom.

        Fine, the individual police officer shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite… BUT NEITHER SHOULD THE COMMON CITIZEN.

        If you cannot give respite to the common citizen in such a regime, neither should you give it to the anointed elite. Selling to individual poice officers in repressive regimes is a “loophole that must be closed.”

        Sorry, but if we want this insanity to stop, ALL MUST SHARE THE PAIN.

        Lenin once said that the weakness of capitalism is that a capitalist would be happy to sell you the rope you needed to hang him. Don’t be a Lenin capitalist.

    • avatarUncle Fester says:

      I think it is good enough. I live in a state that has an AWB and is likely to have a magazine ban soon.

      I want mfg’s to build on the support that we do have in this state.

    • avatarChris says:

      “Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.”

      But its okay to punish the average joe for the actions of the political elite? Armalite president and all employees should go choke themselves.

    • avatarRoger Mowery says:

      Your position is a cop-out. Take a stand or shut up. The point of the exercise is not to go behind the backs of the public and sell to LEOs anyway. The point will never be realized if you cave like a Republican Congressman.
      I understand your intended position in filling orders to LEOs but it isn’t a game of words, it’s a point of action, and you Sir, are just spewing empty words for the sake of profit. Take your stand one way or the other but don’t try to flim-flam us. If the LEOs don’t feel safe without your weapons they will make their stance known to their elected officials as well.

  2. avatarDamon says:

    it’s really unfortunate that they’ve taken this position. my first(and only thus far) AR is an Armalite(bought new) and i love that gun. i was considering buying another to modify to my tastes, so i could have a stock spare, but it looks like now i’m building one from scratch.

  3. avatarLeo Atrox says:

    So Armalite’s official position is that police should be allowed to possess firearms that ordinary citizens cannot possess … Not that ordinary citizens should not be able to possess them, only that police are better and should not be held to the same legal and moral standards as everyone else. Does that about sum it up?

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      yes, herein lies the problem.

      • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

        They guys running Armalite are cops, the rude rep is a cop, and it’s evident that they won’t stop selling to their cop buddies, even in “gun free” states.

        • avatarJ.K. says:

          This pretty much sums it up here. Company of cops “taking care of their own.”

          I was never really fond of Armalite products compared to the other modern AR producers, but the boycott is now explicitly in place for me.

        • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

          Because you suck and we hate you.

          Appears H&K has company.

  4. avatarDavid W. says:

    I’m still confused about this.

    Basically, they are NOT selling to state or local governments that have banned their rifles for civilians. But they DO sell to individual police officers using their own money?

    I really doubt most officers have to buy their own guns for the police car when the DOD is handing out free M16s to any law enforcement group out there.

    Even if a police officer HAD to buy their own guns from a company, wouldn’t the department force them to all buy from the same company for easier servicing and to just generally be annoying?

    So, if they are buying their own guns, with their own moneys, on an individual basis, doesn’t that make it more likely that those individual police officers are actually gun owners IRL and shooters IRL outside of work? Aka people like us but with a job that puts them into the “only ones” that anti-gun people are okay with?

    • avatarKelly in GA says:

      I think it’s a decent policy, although I don’t agree with it entirely. My main point of agreement: it sounds like they would be happy to sell to Saratoga county, NY, but at the same time, not to NYC or the NY state police. I appreciate that. They are willing to arm the folks who will not enforce the law. I find that in keeping with the reward those who help us and not those who hurt us. Seems to fit nicely.

      My main point of disagreement: They are willing to sell to individual Chicago PD officers, but not the ad agency. I’m okay with them going all or nothing below the state level, but I think it should be one or the other per agency, not individual.

    • avatarLyleJames ChiCom IL says:

      Chicago actually does have to purchase their own equipment.
      Until a few years ago, most districts were still rocking windows 98.

    • avatarBen says:

      Yes actually, most agencies do not issue AR-15s, but rather their officers have the option of buying their own, and using it as a duty weapon. I have relatives in the San Jose PD, and LA area CHP, and both departments are that way.

    • avatarMichael says:

      Good friend & former college roommate is a Nashville Metro PD officer and their policy is select officers who have received training are allowed to purchase their own “patrol rifles” – the dept. does not issue them. Just a point of reference. I’m sure SWAT and other select groups get them provided.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      It’s the same reason why cops won’t turn in dirty cops. They have an “us” and “them” mentality, where “us” is the cops and only cops, even retired cops, and “them” are all of us taxpayers who are paying their salaries, lavish pensions and for their absurd toys and equipment.

      • avatarProfessor says:

        If an officer turns in a dirty comrade, that officer is blackballed, hence the overall lack of credibility…

  5. avataranonymous says:

    > We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving
    > Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves,
    > and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.

    Yes they should, because the rest of us are.

    Selling to individual police officers is a “loophole” that needs to be closed.

  6. avatarCYRANO says:

    And here I was eyeing an AR-50 as my next purchase… Me thinks I will purchase another brand or just build one.

  7. avatarKevin Lanier says:

    If they keep straddling that fence they are going to get mity sore!

    • avatar16V says:

      They just want it to appear as if they’re straddling it. If they sell to anyone, especially to coppers, they are telling you exactly where your political concerns rank on their customer list.

      As earlier noted, it’s the members of the gang club taking care of their own, because they’re somehow more deserving of self-protection. They even tell you so in the letter – and that the “salesman” in question is supposedly still serving explains his BS punk attitude towards a question.

  8. avatarChris says:

    Like I have said before, any company that makes significant sales to LE in these ban states are not going to ruin themselves to make people who probably were not buying their rifles anyway feel better. All of the companies that have refused so far are small and probably had none to very few rifles sales to such organizations. They lose nothing and yuo guys eat it up and act like they are heroes.

    • avatarMikeinid says:

      I will grant you some of them may not sell to government much. Others like Magpul have a lot on the line with their stance. I look at this as an education program — one at a time. Imagine if the stock from all government contracts hit the citizen market. Prices would fall and so many arms and ammo would be sold that it would make the gun ban that much more ridiculous. Eat the elephant one bite at a time.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      +1

      You’re right, even though I wish you weren’t.

    • avatargen4n9 says:

      You really think the police departments in gun control states out weigh the civilian market? Wow.

      All of these companies are not back ordered for one to two years because of police department orders. And small companies have an enormous market share to gain by cutting out police departments in gun control states and showing the public that they are worthy of their business, and the large companies have everything to lose.

  9. avatarThomas Paine says:

    “Chicago, for instance, prohibits its citizens from owning ArmaLite’s within the city limits so we make no effort to sell into that city. We have many friends on the Chicago Police Department and have continued to sell to them individually.”

    This is the crux of the problem. 1 rule for you, another rule for us.

    The companies that aren’t selling to LEOs in grabber states are simply protesting this main point. Nobody wants police to be disarmed (well, maybe i do, but whatever), but we cannot have 2 SETS OF RULES whoever the groups.

    same with immigration, taxes, sentencing, etc, etc, but i digress.

    • avatarPatrick says:

      +1

      I see Mark’s explanation like this:
      * “Chicago” (the local state ruling over Chicago) has bad rules.
      * Therefore, we “make no effort to sell into that city”.
      * However, we do sell to “individual” officers.

      I don’t know if he’s saying that the officers make purchases out of Chicago or out of Illinois and then transport them in, or the company just doesn’t advertise much in Chicago. What?

  10. avatarJAS says:

    That clears it up. Guess you can put them on the list but with a “*”.

    * Sells in ban states to police officers who buy their own weapons and to county sheriff departments that will not enforce the laws”

  11. avatarJB says:

    I thought the “common people” label was a bit strange coming from a sales rep until the exec explained he’s a currently serving LEO. Thanks for your involvement in the development of the AR platform, but you won’t catch this common person buying anything branded Armalite.

    • avatarJosh says:

      Yes, exactly. There needs to be infinite public ire over the use of this phrase. If we’re common people, what are cops? I think the CEO should fire the sales rep for calling me a commoner. He should go to some aristocratic country that actually HAS commoners if that’s how he feels.

      • avatarB says:

        This Armalite just bought the name. Its not the same company that was part of Stoner designing the AR’s.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        “Common people” = “civilians”. Nothing has ever been more absurd. Cops are NOT military, although the militarization of America’s police could not be more obvious.

  12. avatarEagleScout87 says:

    Not good enough. If the community was ready to “forever” shun CTD, then Armalite should be in the same boat. True colors on the first email, ass covering on the second.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      The sense of desired control exhibited by many of the commentors here disturbs me. Reminds me of Progressives. You don’t own Armalite. Stop telling them what to do.

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        I can tell them if they want my business they will have certain policies. If they don’t want to accept those policies, I am free to not buy their product and to tell everyone the reason why.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          OK, let’s try this a different way. Is there any company left that’s not on your boycott list? The list of whom I’m “allowed” to buy from and where I’m “supposed” to move from is getting awfully short. Ugh, the bashers of free market Capitalism.

        • avatarsquarebob says:

          It is MY right in a free market to spend MY money where I see fit. I don’t support local businesses that ban firearms and I don’t support companies that have double standards.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          What a bunch of lemmings, running around in circles just waiting to jump on the next company that doesn’t do exactly as the lemming masters say. Fine by my capitalistic self, more guns and ammo for me.

      • avatarPwrserge says:

        It’s called a free market. They are free to set their policies to compromise our freedom and we are free to tell them to FOAD. Armalite is not getting a single cent from me so long as it sells to any individual who as a private citizen would be denied the right to purchase their products.

      • avatarEagleScout87 says:

        I’m not telling them they should or shouldn’t sell to anyone, I’m telling them that my money won’t be going to them when it can be sent to companies with policies I support. Free market capitalism indeed. In another couple years when 3d printing goes mainstream we won’t have to buy from any of them anyway…

        • avatarBill in IL says:

          Joke is a good name for you. We are saying they have the right to sell to whoever they want and we have the right not to buy from them. But you are contradicting yourself when you say we MUST not boycott them. Then you go on to insult us and call names – WOW! And, you clearly have no idea what a free market is.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        Refusing to buy their products is a LONG way from trying to “control” them. GET A GRIP.

      • avatarGunsRightsAZ says:

        Actually, “progressives” are completely united and organized when it comes to demonizing any company that dare not fall lockstep with their values. Look no further than Chick-Fil-A for proof of that, and for such a stupid reason: “We don’t like who you donate money to!”.

        Back to reality, here we have a situation where customers are ACTUALLY treated like second-class citizens, not this supposed “maybe the money they donate doesn’t further our agenda” bit. Oh police? Buy our stuff. Regular people? No, no, we make enough money this way”. Okay, fine. It’s much clearer now.

        They can have whatever policy they want. And I can tell them that I disagree with it. That’s not “bashing capitalism”, Joke and Dagger. That’s free speech, freedom of expression and expressing grievances – which is ADAMANTLY Constitutional. In fact, companies often want to know what their customers are thinking. Sometimes, it may be the ONLY explanation to why sales are soaring (or dropping), and is valuable feedback.

        Granted, they probably don’t want the attention this way, but their bonehead rep popped off. Happens every day.

        EagleScout87 is correct, IMHO. True colors on the first email, ass covering on the second, indeed.

        Tell you what. When they start actually saying it like it is (Yes, we’ll sell to cops whose organizations would ban you from having one), then you can get on your high horse about how we decipher this message and determine if it’s valid, legitimate, or even true.

      • avatarRick says:

        Wow, you don’t have a clue what “Free market” or captialism means.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          I just don’t run around whining every time a privately held company doesn’t do everything I want. Read the article. The company has been flooded with e-mails requesting that they not sell to certain entities. Big difference with choosing not do buy from somebody. Smacks of Progessive strong-arm tactics to me. Whining Lemmings. Shut up and go shooting.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          When are you lemmings going after Glock? Haven’t heard much there.

        • avatarBill says:

          Did I miss it, or did Glock issue a statement? If so, post the link. If not STFU. Read the article, most of the e-mails were asking them to make a statement on their position, they did, they have received the response. Where you get the idea we are “whining” they are not doing what “we”want is absurd in the extreme.

  13. avatarjacquejet says:

    It’s nice to know that according to Armalite considers the private police officer above the law. Apparently, according to Armalite, some citizens are more equal than other subjects.

  14. avatarST says:

    Forget gun companies.

    Why aren’t AMMO companies cutting off these anti-gun organizations? Ill bet Rahm Emmanuel will think twice about his gun laws if his protection detail can’t get ammo.

  15. avatarpk in AZ says:

    Bullshit to ArmaLite!

    Reading that email was to me just as bad as listening to some of these “elected” by the people CONTROL GRABBERS…

    FOAD!

  16. avatarEagleScout87 says:

    This bears repeating:

    “Nobody wants police to be disarmed [...] but we cannot have 2 SETS OF RULES whoever the groups.

    same with immigration, taxes, sentencing, etc, etc, but i digress.”

    • avatartheaton says:

      I want the police to be disarmed. There supposed leaders are out there saying that firearms are only for killing and semi-auto rifles are only for killing huge numbers of people. If that is there mindset, then what is their intent with being armed?

      • avatarWilliam says:

        Clearly, THEIR weapons are “only for killing”. How could anyone deny THAT? I have yet to see a guy in a cop uniform out hunting.

  17. avatarsindaan68 says:

    These bans serve no purpose.

  18. avatarDrewR55 says:

    I’m saddened to hear this. For a long time I had wanted to purchase an ArmaLite carbine but after this I’ll have to reconsider. I’m afraid that AmraLite fails to understand that the police are no more special then the citizens and should be no better armed than the average Joe. If the environment is dangerous enough for a LEO to be thus armed it is also dangerous enough for a private citizen. Allowing individual police officers to purchase weapons prohibited to the citizenry is the same as supporting the policy itself.

    I urge ArmaLite to reconsider their position, they are helping to keep the regime in place.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      Hey Drew,
      Can I use this in a email to Armalite?? Well spoken and I would like to include it in my letter to them.

      • avatarDrewR55 says:

        Absolutely

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          Thank You Sir. Will post a copy of the email when it is done. Intend to include some pointy stick talking points. Part of my problem with Armalite and others that take this “Them but not you” stance is they fail to realize that part of our argument is about the principal of the matter.
          I do not want to see any LEO hurt, as I have several friends who are LEO’s but after all they should be held to the same standards as us. They are not Military(yet) and as such, whether sworn or appointed or elected they are still, in all reality, a civilian. In Arkansas, unknown about other states, it is stressed a lot that as a CHCL holder we will be held to higher standards than the LEO’s are in regards to a self defense shooting or just drawing your weapon to stop an assault,etc.
          Therefore it makes sense that we should have the same fight stopping armament as the LEO’s accessible to us too!!
          Just my .02 worth.

        • avatarDrewR55 says:

          I could not agree more with you, Speed. Unfortunately, when I went through the law enforcement training program in Florida a decade ago they were already stressing to the students that we were joining a para-military force tasked with keeping the peace. Of course, those were in the days right after Sept, 11th and there was some question about their revamped role in the New America, especially in Tampa. It’s been heavily documented here, and discussed at length, but there is a great deal of truth behind the concern for the new model of law enforcement and their new equipment. The days of Officer Friendly have receded into memory.

          I doubt that the sworn officers intended for this to happen but they have been granted perks and benefits by the state and that has made them, their superiors, the politically appointed, and their unions loyal to the local, state, and federal governments and not to the people. We’ve seen this model before and it has never ended well for the citizens of those nations to our south. I don’t mean to conjure up images of the 1960s and the civil unrest which resulted in fire hoses and police dogs turned on citizens but maybe we should remember those days and how in Latin America it went from that to death squads and people disappearing in the middle of the night.

          Think of the derision many of officers now express at the tired old joke, “I pay your salary, you work for me.” Many officers and deputies no longer see it that way and nor do their bosses.

          Of course, I realize that I have gotten off topic. The immediate issue is that officers and deputies are at no more risk than the private citizen (after all, they just patrol the neighborhood but we live here) and they should have access to only the same equipment that we have access to. I do want the officer to be safe but I also want my wife to be safe.

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          I agree Drew. As a teenager,am 50 now, when we were out hot ridding or just cutting up if we got stopped or pulled over by a deputy or metro or even most State police they didn’t do the gung

    • avatarKeithF says:

      Agreed,

      I have no desire to see good officers hurt, I work with many who had to purchase their own rifles (they could at an LE discount rate but still it was their $$) for patrol use. But this is about the message, the idea that this legislation will hurt ALL citizens, including LEOs, because companies will not sell something to a LEO that can’t be bought by a nonsworn citizen..

      On top of this what then is there to stop the next Dorner.. If a LEO is fired but still manages to get a weapon under his former employ from such a company.. or for that matter simply retains a now illegal weapon, how do you control that now illegal gun that was completely legal last week.

      Officers are citizens and must be held to that same standard.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Look into the Troy Defensive Carbine. Not literally INTO it; check it out. I want me one of those BAD.

      • avatarDrewR55 says:

        I will do that, thank you. In the meantime, there is always Palmetto State Armory. I cannot imagine that I’d have to worry about them selling to the New York State Police.

        • avatarBill says:

          In the meantime, there is always Palmetto State Armory. I cannot imagine that I’d have to worry about them selling to the New York Police State .

          There, fixed it for you.

  19. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Lets see, we will sell to the leo across the street if his sargent likes the 2nd but we won’t sell directly to his sargent if commoners can’t buy our crap. Got it, get bent! Randy

  20. avatarWobo says:

    I agree that on a political level saying police/the state can use a certain weapon to defend themselves but not allowing the average citizen that same ability is wrong. However, I don’t agree that we should be trying to take those weapons out of individual officers hands. How does compromising the safety of a public servant help us get what we want? It’s simply retributive and in my opinion doesn’t further the cause of stopping civilian disarmament.

    I feel that Armalite’s stance on the matter is fairly balanced. They have said they won’t sell to specific government entities that aim to support or enforce civilian disarmament, but at the same time are continuing to sell to individual officers who need these weapons to safely do their job. What is the goal of keeping ARs out of officers hands? Are you hoping that a headline reading “Officer killed: Only had a handgun for defense against drug dealers” would somehow convince the government that civilians need their ARs as much as police?

    • avatarPyratemime says:

      The hope is to get the police unions and associations, through the pressure of their membership, to get on the right side of this argument. The only way to do that is to make them feel the same pain that the general population does. After all if the manufacturers stop selling to them the weapons they have have been “grandfathered” in it just means they can’t get new ones. If that is good enough for us the wee proles then it should be good enough for them.

      • avatarWobo says:

        OK, I can see how having police unions and their associations would be powerful allies if they were on our side. Thanks for raising that point.

      • avatarChuck says:

        Police unions are part of the problem, not the solution.

        • avatarPyratemime says:

          Thus why I said they need to get on the right side of the argument. Right now you are correct. If their membership raises the issue, up to and including reaching a point where they elect leadership who are willing to get on our side so as to address the impacts of their previously supporting anti-gun mayors/alderman/councilpersons/etc then they will be part of the solution. Not saying it is easy or quick but it sure wouldn’t hurt to have more groups like the Saratoga County PBA publicly on our side and exerting pressure at the local and state level.

      • avatarMDFalco says:

        EXACTLY Pyratemime!

        Here in NY, LEOs are able to buy all sorts of guns denied to the “average” citizen. PMR30, ARs & AKs as well as PMAGS and they can choose to put them on their “badge” or buy them on their personal pistol license. THAT’S the type of BS that needs to be stopped. Seriously, is an LEO really using a PMR30 as a side arm or an AK in his patrol car?

        Their powerful union is able to get these perks for current AND RETIRED officers. Why? When are retired LEOs called back into service?

        No one wants to see an LEO hurt or killed doing his/her duty, however, until the flow of arms and ammo to them STOPS, they will never use their clout to fight for OUR rights as well as theirs.

        Westron from Armalite is simply demonstrating that “we’re superior” attitude that some LEOs feel is their due.

        Keep in mind that LEOs provide security to keep the cowardly politicians safe. In order to protect their own hides, they’ll eventually have to give in to the LEOs demands.

        Remember, if this fight for our rights is to be won, we cannot afford to leave anything on the table. Any and all tools available to us must be used. Its not a time for half measures (sorry for all the cliches).

        I hate to admit it, but we must use some of the tactics that the left has used so effectively over the years, including boycotts. I can respect Westron’s decision to run his company as he sees fit, however, anyone that doesn’t see that this fight could mean the end of the 2nd Amendment is either short-sighted or a fool.

        • avatarJoseph says:

          I agree with MDFalco. The issue isn’t that Armalite or other companies are selling to law enforcement in states with sweeping bans, the issue is that Law Enforcement are not now and never have been subject to the same set of rules that the average citizens are subjected to.

          There is nothing wrong with police being adequately armed and equipped to do their job, there is everything possible wrong with saying to me that:

          “You don’t need a semi-automatic rifle Joe. You need the police to have semi-automatic rifles and high cap magazines and NFA items.”

          I know many of the LEO’s in my community, because we don’t rate a government subsidized police force, we have a sheriff, who is an elected official and our sheriff has numerous deputies. Every single officer I’ve ever interacted with in my community damn well is “Officer Friendly.” They’re polite, courteous and they don’t go out of their way to get in citizen’s faces.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Armalite is going to take the stance that pisses off the fewest people and therefore makes the most amount of money.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      Do you feel an officers life is worth more than a citizens? My opinion is we live by the same rules or die by the same, Randy

      • avatarWobo says:

        No I certainly don’t believe that simply because someone is a police officer that their life is worth more than mine. I do feel that the likelihood of a police officer being in danger and needing the added advantage of an AR is greater than the average civilian though.

        • avatarRandy Drescher says:

          Untill the crackheads decide to rob the nice family & leave them all dead. You are going by percentages, something I’m not willing to do, Randy

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          That small amount of increased danger they face is why they have such fat paychecks and platinum benefits.

        • avatarJake says:

          That is simply not true. Being a truck driver is statistically around ten times more dangerous than being a cop. Crab fishing, sewer maintenance, all manner of construction, all vastly more injurious to their workers, at LESS pay and zero pension unless the person arranges it with their own savings. Remember most cops never draw and fire their weapon except for “qualification”, and they get to retire after 20 years of work, with full pay and benefits ’til death. Even if there was an increased risk, which there is not, the compensation package is a mitigating factor

        • avatar16V says:

          Being a cop is a rather safe job. You know what’s dangerous? Driving a cab. Delivering anything. Doing construction. (There’s a whole list over at BLS)

          Those are the folks who are likely “not to go home to their family” because they got killed at work.

        • avatarBill in IL says:

          EXACTLY! Police officer does not make the top ten list of most dangerous jobs. As has been stated, cab drivers, semi drivers, construction, commercial fishing, delivery drivers, etcetera are all more dangerous. The myth that being a police officer is a dangerous job is nothing more than propaganda put out by the unions and the political elite to justify the pay, benefits and pensions.

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          I would like to see some of these cops who loudly proclaim how tough and dangerous their job is come and do our job.
          I work in a open pit limestone quarry and if you don’t pay attention for that one split second depending on your job you can be seriously hurt or even killed in a number of ways.
          In 11 yrs here I have had my thumb broken twice, a vertebrae fractured, numerous quicklime burns, and various cuts and abrasions. And these are minor injuries compared to some who have lost an eye, or fingers or toes.
          A good example is while working to replace a broken bearing a construction worker 125 above where we were working kicked a 2″x2″x 1/4″ thick piece of scrap steel off of the platform above us. That piece of steel landed flat on the edge of my vertebrae with enough impact that it literally knocked me face down in the dirt. After being Xrayed the doctor said because of the location and size of the fracture the only thing they can do is fuse the bone together. No Thanks!!!
          Yea not a LEO job but they aren’t the only one’s with dangerous jobs, and like us they volunteered to do the job.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Because it’s principle. Because are many localities where all the officers buy their own rifles. They usually have a choice of 2-3 different brands, but they have to purchase it themselves. “We’re not selling to that agency because civilians can’t own them, but we’ll still sell to individual officers.” Don’t you see it that it costs them absolutely nothing to say that? They’re not actually withholding anything, because the agencies don’t buy them anyway. The officers do, and that’s not stopping.

      The companies that are publicly refusing to sell (regardless of how much business they actually do) are doing so in a blanket manner to call attention to the hypocrisy of the legal situation. If the cops realize that they’ll be disarmed, too, perhaps they won’t be so quick to agitate in favor of these laws. Armalite wants to have its cake and eat it too.

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      My rights and safety are more important than a government employee’s.

    • avatarDJ says:

      I’m curious – we hear “if the police don’t have patrol rifles the criminals will outgun the police.” Other than the North Hollywood shooting how many time have police officers been engaged by magazine fed semi-automatic rifles? I think it can’t be a big number, but I’ve never seen any data (and I’m completely open to being wrong)?

    • avatarWilliam says:

      “How does compromising the safety of a public servant help us get what we want?”

      They want to compromise OURS! How does that help US? If disarming them prevents wrong-address-oops-too-bad home invasion murders by cops, isn’t that a positive outcome?

  21. avatarDale says:

    Translation: In restricted areas of the country we will still continue to sell to “special” people.

  22. avatarPyratemime says:

    I think Mr. Westrom misses the point. While the firearms community certainly doesn’t wish specific harm on the LEO community we do want them to feel the pinch the same way that those living in restricted states are. The only way to do that is by making them live by the same rules as the “common people”. Half measures like saying we won’t sell to the government entity that employes LEOs but we will sell to the LEOs themselves is meaningless. On the surface it changes the appearance of the purchase but at the end of the day the rifle is still there and functioning the exact same way. Seems about as effective as oh say a ban on cosmetic features for rifles.

  23. avatarAlex Peterson says:

    Simple answer. There are plenty of companies who have drawn the line in the sand. No need to do business with those that think it’s okay to straddle the line. Show them the error of their ways by keeping your wallets closed to them.

  24. avatarsdog says:

    swing……..annnnnd a miss armalite, not even ian harrison can save recoil, CTD has attempted to re-buy customer loyalty, and now armalite is on the list. The “apology” response here was galling, “we will still sell to leo’s, but we are sorry if some you are upset by my idiot employee.”

    “We have many friends on the Chicago Police Department and have continued to sell to them individually.”

    i read to that line and stopped.

    “We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.”

    no, they are just the guys who will come into your house (or burn it down depending on the situation) and club you over the head and take your stuff if you look at them wrong.

    • avatarBill says:

      “We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.”

      But it is just fine and dandy if us serfs are punished by the political elite, as long as Armalite makes money, Mark couldn’t care less.

  25. avatarDon says:

    Boo. It’s about putting pressure on the political elites. If the political elites enjoy protection from AR armed police there is no pressure, if police aren’t fighting on our side, there is less pressure.

  26. avatarFug says:

    I do not think this is on the same level as CTD. I do think calls to ban sales to certain states have gotten a bit out of hand and undermine gun owners attempting to continue shooting in those states, including LEOs who may not agree with policies enacted by serving politicians.

    I’ve heard Mark Westrom of Armalite invented the mid length gas system. If that is true then I respect him for it. But I have always questioned Armalite’s business practices ever since I learned they had no association with the original Armalite division of Fairchild Aircraft. They bought the name from some Filipinos who had owned it for awhile, if I recall. Sooo all that “AR stands for Armalite” stuff sounds kind of silly to me.

    Still, if they had a role in developing the mid length gas system that is a major achievement and they have continued to make A2 pattern uppers. They fill a niche and I don’t think I would call them traitors over this… They have been operating in Illinois for some time and they clearly have their own approach to these issues.

  27. avatarimrambi says:

    Letter summary:

    We support a police state.

    • avatarMichael says:

      Because they’re part of the problem (with employees and possibly the ownership being former & current LEOs apparently). Too many bootlickers in this industry. I’ll spend my money elsewhere.

  28. avatarDoug says:

    Okaaaaay…

    Why would you even respond to a spammer? Does not compute.

  29. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    Just because someone owns/makes/sells/fixes/shoots/collects/photographs/writes about/sings songs of/hunts/reloads guns, doesn’t make him automatically my friend. You prove your friendship by your actions. I’ve said it before. These gun companies and their management need to be watched very carefully. Sadly this particular guy sounds like his priorities are not mine.

  30. avatarJim R says:

    I can’t really say I’m going to boycott them, because I didn’t really want anything they made anyway.

  31. avatarGherkin says:

    Bottom line is the CEO is former LE, his perspective on the matter is skewed. Many LEOs, not all, are fine with cops being better armed than the proletariat. It’s good to know where they stand so we can buy or not buy as informed consumers.

  32. avatarSam C says:

    I don’t like referring to the weapon as an “Armalite.” Not only is it suggesting that exactly the same rifle made by other companies is somehow different, but it also conjures up images of Irish terrorists.

    This decision is not good enough.

  33. avatarNewge says:

    Let me “cliff notes” ArmaLites response.

    To whom it may concern,
    I was a cop. The a-hole that sent the initial response was not as friendly as he should have been, so let me try. I’m a retired cop. The a-hole that sent the initial response is currently a cop. We here at ArmaLite believe that cops are superior to you peasants so we will continue to sell our sh!t to them even though you all can’t buy it. You mopes don’t need these guns anyway. If you want them; come walk “the thin blue line” with us hard-asses.

    Sincerely,
    Sgt. Hard Ass

  34. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    The way I see it…

    Either the officer is purchasing the weapon as a private citizen with his/her own money in clear violation of the laws governing the rest of the private citizens, or…

    The officer is acting as a “straw purchaser” for his/her state or local agency and is being reimbursed by that agency.

    Nothing shady going on here. Move along. Nothing to see here…..

  35. avatarPascal says:

    Here is what I read:

    We have talked to our accountants and phew! We would be screwed if we stopped these sales. We then talked to marketing to see how we could word smith this so it looks like we are not supporting these ban states. At the end of the day, we will do what makes us money. Sorry the rest of you are screwed, but I need my bonus. We will continue to pretend to support the 2a and continue to support the special people. I will think about all of you unfortunate people as I drive away in my porsche and eat dinner in my 5000 sqft home. Good luck, sucks to be you. Please continue to support us if you are in a state that can.

  36. avatargloomhound says:

    I appreciate that ArmaLite took the time to explain their thoughts and position on Law Enforcement sales. It was a well reasoned response, it just happened to be one I don’t agree with.

    Law Enforcement Officers ARE private civilians and as such ought have to live under the same laws as everyone else.

    This is America and we have no kings!

  37. avatarDBeans says:

    Not good enough. I am building an ar15 and was leaning towards getting an armalite upper….. Not any more there’s too many good options of companies that DO stand up for our rights for me to go with a back stabbing company such as this.

  38. avatarJustAJ says:

    “and their officers deserve good hardware”

    But us “regular folk” do not, apparently. F- Armalite.

  39. avatarJames100 says:

    My short list of boycotted businesses is getting longer. Damn, is this good or bad?

  40. avatarTim U says:

    Given how Spike’s Tactical, Olympic Arms, and LaRue Tactical have all taken a much better stance, and all produce quality rifles, I really don’t think I need anything from ArmaLite.

    Sorry guys, your stance isn’t as good as others, I’m taking my business elsewhere.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      No, you don’t.

      There is absolutely nothing unique about Armalite. Nothing at all. The intellectual property issues that used to be responsible for a dearth of AR platforms are done and over with. The cat, so to speak, is out of the bag. There is absolutely no reason why anyone has to do business with an AR manufacture they don’t like.

  41. avatarKestrel says:

    “We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.”
    Unacceptable.
    Do not double-speak a distinction between the police force under a political elite and the citizen under that same political elite.
    They sound like liberals.
    Again, unacceptable.

  42. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    They should just shorten that down to “We don’t sell to Democrats”.

  43. avatarMOG says:

    Armalite has every right to sell their products to anyone(legal). Those that oppose their views are free not to buy their products. The right to bear arms is not the only right afforded by the Constitution, but, it is the one under attack, for now. Other rights will be addressed as they become inconvenient to The Government in the months/years to follow. There is only one political party, The Democratic-Republican party. The only difference they have, is how to control the population, service for the Nation is no longer an option. The Good Cop/Bad Cop strategy used on a political level. Try to keep it civil people. (No, I do not buy Armalite/Colt).

  44. avatarNickbnumbers says:

    Armalite is free to run its business any way it sees fit…and I’m free to spend my money any way I see fit…which won’t be on Armalite products anymore.

    See ya, Mark!

  45. avatarCasey T says:

    Well, I guess I’ll never give Armalite any of my business. The whole law enforcement and former law enforcement being allowed to own firearms we can’t frustrates me. I’m a veteran and I don’t understand how being a former cop gives them more rights than me.

  46. avatarStacy says:

    I agree that there’s a strong whiff of weasel about ArmaLite’s response, however…

    …the companies that have been shouting that they’re stopping sales to ban states are all small manufacturers or resellers whose bread and butter is clearly the civilian market, not the govt/military. So their flag-waving is almost as cheap as ArmaLite’s hair-splitting. I’m glad they feel the way they do, but it’s not as if they’re making a huge financial sacrifice.

    The only one I credit with taking a real risk is Magpul. They could clearly stay in CO and get special dispensation to keep making and selling their products. Moving will be expensive and disruptive, no matter what they say. And there’s a nonzero chance of retaliation in the form of the Dems engineering another military ban on plastic magazines.

  47. avatarDouglas Mason says:

    As others have said, a LEO purchasing a firearm with his/her own money is purchasing said firearm AS A CITIZEN.

    I just finished a VERY respectful email to ArmaLite. I have friend who are/were LEOs. But ArmaLite is missing the point. If we do not stand together NOW and hurt the governments where it matters, then we might as well make no stand at all.

    I live in Colorado. Magpul is likely soon to be forced out by legislation. ArmaLite is in ILLINOIS. When a Magpul situation hits ArmaLite, and they need others to stand with them… this response will come back to bite them. If they do not stand with us now, I will not stand with them should the time come when they need it the most.

  48. avatarCJ says:

    I call BS. ArmaLite wants both legs firmly planted on both sides of the fence. Let the barbwire hit em where it should. We are in a fight that does not allow a middle ground.

  49. avatarThe Stig says:

    This sounds to me like they are trying to give lip service to the boycott, but they really are going to keep selling to any and everyone whom others are boycotting.

    Thankfully Armalite doesn’t make anything I’m interested in owning, but if they did, I wouldn’t be buying from them.

  50. avatarLuis says:

    Cops need to remember that no matter how they dress or how many walls their swat team rappels down they are still civilians and shouldn’t have a carve out for what they can buy w/ their own money. The cops have a carve out even when they are retired. This is a case where literally some animals are more equal than others.

  51. avatarHal says:

    I still want an AR-10 height A-2 style front sight tower! Please don’t let me down armalite! I already have a gunsmith lined up to machine my LMT MWS barrel down in two places to so I can pin it on there…

  52. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    when the hysteria dies down, we will remember who stood with us and who stuck a finger in the air to sense the direction of the wind . . . . just saying

  53. avatarAccur81 says:

    I live in CA, and I don’t want a bullet button or 10 round mag in my duty AR for the same reason as everyone else: it limits the capability of the platform and makes reloads a PITA. Still, I can’t help but think that limits on the equipment of LEOs would potentially destroy these gun bans forever. Part of the problem is that companies are not consistent. Markets work against companies who limit sales, and a company cannot necessarily buck the market and remain profitable, especially if another company steps in to grab the hole in the market.

    If TTAG boycotts Armalite, I wouldn’t blame them.

  54. avatarKeithF says:

    Sent this to Armalite, thoughts? Good? Bad? Ugly? As community here we have overwhelmingly recognized that the tone of our arguments can be much more influential than the facts. Let’s continue to set the tone, even though we are tired of doing so by now

    Armalite,

    I recently noticed the removal of your facebook page and this made me sad, I loved the ‘free stuff’ updates and the inventory posts. It made for a company that interacted with its customer base more than many do, it made it personal.

    That being said let me clarify my standing. I’ve owned and loved 2 AR10A4 rifles one 20″ and one 16″, both were excellent firearms and I had planned to purchase one of the new “A” models that were pmag compatible. I’m a Firearms instructor in your north east neighbor Michigan, served 6 years in the Marine Corps infantry where I also served as an instructor, and I have been thoroughly happy with your products.

    I know you’re a receiving a heavy backlash from the private sales sector at the moment. There are a great many angry people, many of whom may have never bought product from you and perhaps who never would. I understand their sentiments as well as I understand yours. I work side by side with a police department that supplies their own personal rifles and I have absolutely no desire to see those officers hurt or out gunned..

    But… there is always a but it seems,

    I must agree with the message, if not the tone, of the private community. The only way to drag some change out of the LEO’s communities that are banned from possessing your products is too put them on equal footing. It’s all well and good to say you believe everyone should be able to own your rifles and that you sell to LEOs who believe the same, as they are fantastic products at a competitive price, but when that same LEO can still buy that rifle but the citizen he says should also be able to buy it cannot he essentially has no skin the fight. He can say, sincerely even, that he believes in the people’s right to own that firearm but at the end of the day he has no personal stake in the fight.. he already has his gun, he’s not denied his gun, it’s not his right’s he’s fighting for and that ultimately makes it not his fight, as sincerely as he might believe in the cause at the end of the day he has his gun, it’s not denied to him.

    I understand that it is a dramatic move, that it will shift business and that it could potentially risk the life of an LEO by denying him or her a rifle.. I completely understand that. But that is, sadly, the point we are at. Officers who believe in the Second Amendment need skin in the game, real teeth. If they can go to their superiors, elected officials and say “Look, your stupid political game is putting MY life in danger for no gain what so ever” then something will have to give.

    Maybe you are already face to face with a great many of the departments, maybe you already sell only to staunchly pro 2A officers, but the civilian community you sell to wants their LEO brothers with some skin in this fight too. It isn’t easy, it could be painful, but we as lawful citizens should be on equal footing. That is the message we want to see as a community, all of us with skin in the game, because your profession does not define what rights you receive or to what degree you can have them, they are rights.

    I hope this has been a calmer voice with the same message, I work in areas where it never pays to become angry, you get visibly angry you lose the argument.

    Here is our argument, at least what I perceive as our true argument.

    Thank you for your time and consideration, you have responded personally in the past and for that I thank you as well

    Keith F

  55. avatarPete says:

    I was tempted by their ar10s but i think i will pass now. Mega maten even though i dont know how to build one lol!

  56. avatarTed says:

    After assembling my most recent AR from parts, I will probably never buy another complete rifle again.

    The beauty of assembling your own, is that you don’t have to wait for the perfect rifle from the perfect company to become available.

    Pick and choose your own parts from a variety of manufacturers that support public gun rights. You’ll end up with the perfect rifle for you, and at the end of the day, you won’t feel like you made a deal with the devil.

    -ted

  57. avatarjwm says:

    If patrol rifles are denied to citizens, then all citizens, including cops should not have them. If the cops in blue states feel they need to buy a patrol rifle out of their own pockets they should follow the rules of any other citizen. .30-30′s all around in NY Ca and ILL.

  58. avatarChris says:

    Refusing to sell to cops in these states would probably cause the police and their unions to put pressure on the elected idiots passing such laws and maybe they could be stopped.

  59. avatarRalph says:

    What’s the big surprise – cops gotta be cops.

  60. avatarCulpeper Kid says:

    Forget ArmaLite and every other collaborator.

  61. avatarInBox485 says:

    Fuck that shit. If AR wants to sell to cops that happily oppress citizen’s rights, then fuck them and their products.

  62. avatarJohn Rand says:

    I would have preferred a blanket ban, but I can see some side to their reasoning.

    Ideally, anyone should be able to buy an AR. Certain places are banning them for their citizenry. Generally they’ve put in holes so that their LEOs can get past them, because they need their private army. But those LEOs are still citizens. So if you can get any weapons into the hands of a citizen, even if that citizen is an LEO, isn’t that a boon? Does being a LEO somehow preclude him also being a citizen?

    As pointed out, distributors are still going to sell to law enforcement. Government is going to buy those weapons, even if the distributor marks it up 300% because he/she is a scab. They don’t care, because it’s our money buying it. The amount of budget spent on arms is trivial compared to pensions and pay. So all these declarations are primarily about making a stand, even if it will have very little effect in practice. Armalite has made a stand. I doubt any of them will have any meaningful effect on law enforcement’s ability to procure weapons and accessories.

  63. avatarKY1911 says:

    Westrom is full of it in his “treading the needle” response. He can’t have it both ways and in doing so has defined the only market segment that WILL be buying his products…since the rest of us seemingly won’t.

  64. avatarLarry2 says:

    Just added them to my list of those to never do business again with EVER. Right up there with CTD. Too bad because I had one of their rifles on my “soon to buy” after all this silliness dies down. Hear that Armalite? That’s the sound of dollars ringing up in your competitor’s cash registers. Your lack of leadership won’t be forgotten by us lowly civilians. Or even those civilians that might have multimillion dollar defense budgets to burn ;)

  65. avatarDaniel says:

    My business just went elsewhere. They were in serious contention for an AR-10 purchase this summer. Now they’re nowhere on the list.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Go look at LR-308′s. There’s no functional difference between the two, the biggest difference is that there are more companies making LR-308 receivers and accessories (like magazines) than for the AR-10.

  66. avatarKCK says:

    Our efforts should not be to directly disarm police. It is to same-arm police and citizens.
    What is the best way to have the Law Enforcers send messages to Law Makers?
    An infantryman will carry an M60 or M24x and citizens can’t. Many have already agreed to split the herd on military service and their weaponry. Not a big jump to split the herd again for LE.
    Where we see the true political constituency colors is when law makers allow retired/non-active officers remain in the old herd. Thus reducing the blue uniforms appearing in front of camera saying “This ain’t right”. So how do we get LE to be on the citizens side even if they get special treatment? Politicians don’t want upset that constituency so they say, “here you go with special status”.
    It is easy for individual officers to rationalize their special status but the profession then starts to attract people that like being special and powerful. It is concessionary political move to try to have Ex-LEO’s excluded in the exemption, hoping that they then will push for citizens’ rights because they know one day they will be stuck being one.
    It should only be used as an example of the politicians ignorance of the constitutional “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings” clause. We should not wish to take anything away from LE, but Law makers need to know the first principle of EQUAL. If they do understand “EQUAL, then they can not take AR’s out of our hands if they won’t take them from LE. Law makers should be our first targets. Manufacturers?
    Maybe, maybe not.
    Still thinkn’.

  67. avatarCarter says:

    Police that purchase Armalite products do so because they are on department approved lists. Although their position is leaning towards the right thing, Armalite is still supporting the enemy.

  68. avatarLance says:

    Get Colt to do what Olympic arm is doing!!!

  69. avatarRob says:

    This song seems to fit…

    “My Little Armalite”

  70. avatarniceguns says:

    I WILL NOT PURCHASE FROM CHEAPER THEN DIRT
    AND NOW I WILL NOT DO BUSINESS WITH ARMALITE, NOT EVEN USED SO THAT THERE PRODUCR BECOMES WORTHLESS

  71. avatargen4n9 says:

    Here’s a boycott Armalite facebook page for anyone interested. http://www.facebook.com/BoycottArmaliteFirearms

  72. avatarLars says:

    Absolute BS. Armalite needs to stop all sales to LEO period, in states where they deny citizens the same weaponry.
    Private ranges need to get into this fight to, any firearm company that sells to LEO and not to civilians in states that have banned civilian sales needs to ban these same firearms from the ranges. My local ffl guy owns the range I use and I mentioned this to him and he says it’s not a bad idea, but other then the fact he wouldn’t want to ban a person from shooting just because they own a said brand firearm(I wouldn’t either to be honest) but he said most at the range and at his shop already support the boycott of such brand names so he’ll leave it at that.

    • avatarMr Pierogie says:

      Let’s be fair, they don’t HAVE to do anything, but it would be great if they took our side and curbed sales to LEOs in restrictive areas. If more companies pressured LEOs like that, they’d realize very quickly that they can’t get away with restricting our rights, so my guess is that the restrictions would be repealed. The whole movement could be over very quickly. Law enforcement agencies would not be able to sustain the pressure and they themselves would ask for new, more reasonable legislation.

  73. avatarWA_2A says:

    Vote with your wallets, ladies and gentlemen; ditch those police-ass-kissers.

  74. avatarJared says:

    I just fell from “madly in love” with my Armalite M-15 to, “get back in the safe you filthy slut”

  75. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    Hey armalite! If they are illegal for citizens, the cops won’t need them anyway since nobody else will have them anyway, right?

  76. avatarCharlie says:

    I read the release on another forum and thought it was a forgery because of the oddball sentence structure and punctuation, and incorrect use of the possessive (Armalite’s) for the plural. I own a couple of 10s, and neither Armalite’s stance on this issue nor Mr. Westrom’s cavalier treatment of grammer in any way enhances my regard for the company.

    This ain’t gonna play out well for them.

    Charlie

  77. avatarRob G says:

    There’s nothing to stop a police dept in NY or Chicago from giving the money to the officers to purchase individually so I’m not terribly impressed with Armalite’s approach.

  78. avatarchewcudda says:

    just read the whole sordid business at arf.com

    now i remember why i don’t read arf.com

  79. avatarSGC says:

    Wrong answer Armalite…I can’t support a company that has dual standards for law abiding citizens and the government. On the CTD list you go…

  80. avatartanksoldier says:

    The agents who enforce the laws passed by those who have betrayed their oath, and who stand forsworn themselves, is no better than selling to the agencies directly.

    Until and unless this policy is changed I won’t evr purchase an ArmaLite product.

  81. avatarfiredsilver.ok says:

    The cops should never have access to arms which are denied the ordinary citizen. That’s the bottom line, and that is where the stand should be made.

  82. avatarAnmut says:

    Armalite is free to choose who they sell to and who they don’t. And we are free to choose to black list them for the next 30 years or until they go bankrupt.

  83. avatarfrankgon4 says:

    Having the 2nd amendment to protect my first amendment right.
    Email sent to ArmaLite.

  84. avatarmp says:

    Dear Mr. Westrom, ,

    I am sorry to have to inform you that as a law abiding citizen, gun owner, father, husband, son, and physician:

    I will no longer be able to purchase or continue to possess your products. This is a shame as your products (used to) offer superior personal, home and self defense abilities to the law abiding citizen.

    There can be no double standard.

    Very sincerely,

    Michael XXXXXX, M.D.
    XXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXX, Ohio XXXXX

  85. avatarBig B says:

    While they may be well intentioned, what they really are is an enabler.
    : one that enables another to achieve an end; especially : one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior

  86. avatarpat says:

    If it aint good enough for the citizenry, it sould not be good enough for the pigs.

  87. avatarJason says:

    So, in nut shell they will continue to support those who will not support us…supply the weapons that we citizens can’t have to the “elite” who can have them. I get it…in other words all citizens should shop someplace else. I will not support in anyway a company that sees fit to keep their products in the hands of those who do not support us…I will stick with those who have the citizens rights in mind. Big mistake ArmaLite…HUGE…

  88. avatarGeneral Shooter says:

    If a “police officer” can act so irrationally to emails, then one must question whether he is emotionally stable enough to be in law enforcement, where real dangers occur and adrenaline is pumping.

    The company’s response is unacceptable. They are arming the guys who — when given orders to shoot at “otherwise law-abiding citizens” — will do so with an Armalite product.

  89. avatarRetired Cop says:

    Let’s make some sense of this. I spent a total of near 35 years in Law Enforcement before retiring so I think I probably know what I’m talking about. No Armalite….your argument does not wash. Still looks dirty. Cleanse yourself by making NO SALES to any agencies or LEO individuals. Why you ask? Very simple. Law enforcement officers in those states would have to get a request to buy and carry these banned weapons on department letterhead from the agency that they work for showing that the purchase was agreed to and approved by the Chief or Sheriff of the agency which they serve. Only then would that officer be able to obtain that weapon for carry within their respective agency. They would have to qualify with it and maintain proficiency with that firearm. As with the past ban if that officer leaves that department by choice or is seperated that weapon does not go with the individual when he leaves. Makes no difference that it was their cash that made the purchase. Remember it is a banned weapon. It becomes PROPERTY OF THE AGENCY for which it was purchased for use in the individual LEO holds no property rights to it. No ARMALITE your wash is on the line and it is still dirty. Don’t sell to any person or agency until this stupidity and mass liberal hysteria stops.

  90. avatarjohn hurst says:

    Boo Hoo for Armalite if they do not realize that this is the first step in disarming the population. Then they start to tell private businesses exactly what they can sell and produce. If NY was in such a secretive rush to enact this FEEL GOOD LEGISLATION that they forgot to exempt Law Enforcement then let the police be out gunned. Lets see what happens then. Bad guys do not give a **** about gun control. But still big thumbs down to Armalite

  91. avatarNick says:

    Where’s all the hate for Colt, Glock, H&K and dozens of other makers who have NO policy for not selling to ban states? What about Magpul, who has had THE SAME policy as ArmaLite?

    Buncha pharisees posting here. Ya’ll should be ashamed.

    And no, I’m not an ArmaLite employee. Just someone who actually thinks before speaking, which clearly is not the case for most here.

  92. avatarMark says:

    New York State Consolidated Laws
    Section 74 of the Public Officers’ Law.
    d). No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the
    legislature or legislative employee should use or attempt to use his
    official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for
    himself or others.

    Any questions?

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.